Subject: [lisp] Rechartering Discussion Follow-up

From: Luigi Iannone <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 00:01:22 +0200

Hi All,

during the last meeting and on the mailing list there has been nice discussion
on possible work that the WG can do.
It is time to resume the discussion. Hereafter you can find the minutes of the 
rechartering discussion that happened in Prague (complete minutes will be uploaded 
by the end of the week).

It looks like there are three main points that needs to be tackled, namely:

- Move to Standard Track: 
	By dropping the Internet Scalability aspect and focusing on LISP 
	as an overlay technology it would be possible to move the work 
	out of experimental status to Standard Track.

- LISP Overlay Model: 
	The LCAF potentially allows to define mappings between any existing 
	namespace, but the LISP header allows only IPv4 over IPv6 and
	viceversa. 

- LISP Use Cases: For lack of better wording “use case” here stands for 
	the aspects of the LISP technology the WG should focus on
	(knowing that would be impossible to cover everything)

For these three aspects we will open three different threads on the mailing list.

So please, unless you have very general remarks, reply in the specific threads
expressing you opinion and helping us (the chairs) summarize the discussion
in a new charter.

Joel & Luigi

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rechartering Minutes:

[Darrel Lewis]: asks to not tight the different protocol details and the core (e.g., mapping system, NAT traversal…) to a particular use case.

[Terry Manderson]: proposes to remove the IAB requirement about scalability of routing table problem to concentrate on the core protocol and think about the critical use cases that the WG want to work on.

   [Joel Halpern/Dino Farinacci/Albert Cabellos] agree with Terry.

[Ed Lopez] says problem can be separated: the case of LISP as end-system, and the one in intermediate system.

[Darrel Lewis] makes the distinction between immediate use cases and exploratory use cases.

[Michael Menth] says it is important to have deployment to understand what could be the use case.

[Sharon Barkai] says that what is important is the notion of overlay and that the group should propose a clear interface for “map assisted overlays”. Opening the schema to different solutions and underlays.

[Larry Kreeger]: proposes to get more with NVO3.

[Joel Halpern]: asks attendees to refine categories and send to the list.